ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



How far away is fusion?

Posted: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:26 PM by Alan Boyle


Alan Boyle / MSNBC.com
A bare spot amid forested land in the distance shows where ITER's nuclear fusion
facility will be built in the French countryside. Construction is slated to begin in
2009. The tallest building on the complex will rise 160 feet (50 meters) high.

Right now, the site of the ITER experimental nuclear fusion plant is literally just a bare spot on the ground in the south of France. But the grand energy vision is gradually taking shape on the computers and whiteboards at the ITER organization's temporary quarters nearby - and Gary Johnson is already worried about getting everything ready in time for the big reveal in 2016.

"A 10-year cycle to do all this is very tight from our standpoint," Johnson told me in his very temporary office, set up in a prefab building at CEA Cadarache, one of France's nuclear research centers.

"All this" refers to the long list of tasks that Johnson, one of the top-ranking Americans in ITER's hierarchy, will have to oversee. During this week's visit to Cadarache, I saw firsthand how the international effort to develop commercially viable fusion reactors is only now beginning to gather critical mass.

ITER is an acronym for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, but it also refers to the Latin word for "the way." ITER's seven partners, or "parties" - China, Europe, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States - believe the effort will show the way toward the long-held but elusive dream of harnessing the power behind the sun's glow and an H-bomb's blast. Agreement on the ITER framework was announced two years ago today, and the treaty setting up the organization was signed last November.


ITER

An artist's conception shows what the ITER fusion
facility would look like from the air, in the center
of the picture, after completion in 2016.


Scheduled for startup in 2016, ITER's 15-story-tall facility would combine two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium, amid temperatures of tens of millions of degrees to create helium and a neutron - releasing a burst of energy in the process. The chief challenge will be to contain all that power inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field, generated by a superconducting contraption called a tokamak.

As one of ITER's seven acting deputy directors-general, Johnson is in charge of building the tokamak, in cooperation with all the parties backing the effort.

"It's definitely a big challenge," said Johnson, a veteran of nuclear research programs at the Oak Ridge and Lawrence Livermore national labs. "We're going to have bumps in the road, but I go to a lot of meetings with various parties, and they're motivated just as much as we are to make this successful."

Kaname Ikeda, ITER's acting director-general (and Johnson's boss), is convinced that his nascent organization is taking the right way. "I feel quite comfortable," Ikeda told me. "It's just a question of investment and commitment by the parties. ... It's not something you can do alone."

If ITER is successful, the project could open the way to a new source of power - one that is arguably safer and cleaner than nuclear fission, potentially better for large-scale power generation than wind or solar, and less problematic than fossil fuels when it comes to the issue of global warming.

"Not to argue the impact, but I do think that nuclear energy is very essential to solve the living quality of the environment, and also to save many communities from the question of resources, and also to raise the supply of energy," Ikeda said.

Exploring all the inner workings of nuclear fusion research in general - and ITER in particular - will have to wait for a later time. It's just too much information to digest at once, even during this month's Big Science Tour.

For now, I'll just list some of the reasons why 2016 doesn't look that far away for Johnson. They aren't the reasons that you might think would apply. Sure, some people are doubtful whether ITER will actually show the way - but not Johnson. He believes commercial fusion is at least theoretically possible, even though it may take until 2040 to get all the way there.

"Basically, we know how to design this machine," he told me. "It's just a complicated, integrated package with a lot of different players, that's what makes it challenging for us."

The first challenge is to ramp up the ITER organization, while at the same time respecting the contributions of the seven parties. Although ITER has been decades in the making, the legal and administrative foundation for operations is only now being established.

ITER has to lay out the specifications for all of the facility's components, which are to be supplied by the parties under the terms of a complicated procurement formula. All this will take years to thrash out. Then, under the watchful eye of French nuclear regulators, ITER will be charged with making sure that the components do the job safely and according to the specs.

"It's going to be quite an interesting time when these things start coming in," Johnson said.

Materials science will be a big issue for the ITER facility. The cryogenically cooled tokamak will have to weather the radiation thrown off by the fusion plasma, as well as electromagnetic loads created by the magnetic containment system. All this will likely require the use of exotic metals such as beryllium, niobium and tungsten.

"In some cases, we're going to put a big dent in the world supply of some of these things," Johnson said. "We're going to be buying 23,000 tons of some high-tech stuff."

ITER's reactor will have to use radioactive tritium, and that means the components will degrade over time. The best workers for the job of maintaining the reactor will be robots, operating autonomously as well as under remote control, Johnson said. All this will require rock-solid systems for the remote handling of radioactive materials.

"We're going to actually test those out during our assembly activities," Johnson said.

Every day brings new issues to deal with. On Wednesday, the day we spoke, Johnson had at least three major meetings to attend - focusing on the plans for the tokamak's vacuum vessel, the superconducting coils and the building plans. France hasn't yet signed off on the permits for the actual fusion facility, so crews have just been clearing the trees off the main site and working on secondary buildings (like the prefab office space). Plant construction is due to begin in earnest in 2009.

Plenty of organizational matters as well as engineering challenges still have to be addressed. For example, Europe's procurement agency, Fusion for Energy, was inaugurated just today in Barcelona - and the agency's director has yet to be named. (The designated U.S. procurement agency is hosted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in partnership with the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory and the Savannah River National Laboratory.) These domestic agencies will play a key role in making sure Johnson and other ITER officials have the hardware they'll need to make the reactor a reality.

And then there's the issue of public sentiment, which is often tinged with suspicion of all things nuclear. ITER officials have been conducting a series of public forums to reassure local residents in Provence about the facility's safety, and they say the project has been well-received. But not everyone is convinced. One sign painted on a hillside along the road to ITER's headquarters proclaims in French: "Non a ITER."

Check out the ITER Web site and review this discussion of ITER's pros and cons on the journal Nature's Weblog. Then put on your thinking cap and let me know whether you vote "oui" or "non" by adding your comments below. You can also register your opinion and find out what others think by taking this unscientific Live Vote.

I'm heading back home from Europe today, but I'll start passing along what you have to say as soon as I touch down in Seattle.

Previously from the Big Science Tour: The science behind the tour ... Living in the Web's cradle ... Inside the big-bang machine ... Toiling in the fields of physics ... Inside the antimatter factory ... First, the Web ... now, the Grid ... Suspense on a subatomic scale ... Inside fusion's fortress

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

The quote that jumps out at me right away is "A 10-year cycle to do all this is very tight from our standpoint,"

I am always fascinated albeit impatient with how long such complicated projects take (even after full funding is approved).  One of the things that definitely help is computer aided design which is becoming more and more common in everything.  With it, the Boeing 777 didn't even need to be built as a mockup and things fit together far better right from the start reducing last minute redesigns.

 Telecommunications also is a great assist in speeding things up.  When building the New F/A-18E/F Northrop and McAir has several thousand computer work stations linked together even though they were miles apart.  We also have yet to see the implact of things like rapid prototyping which allows a compter to render an actual 3D part from a vat of plastic within a mere microwave-like oven.

Oh Yeah... and the other quote that really stood out was:

"The cryogenically cooled tokamak will have to weather the radiation thrown off by the fusion plasma, as well as electromagnetic loads created by the magnetic containment system."

To which I reply: Just don't ask an American company to do it! Ha-ha!

It's my opinion that Neuclear Fusion is the way to go.

I do not understand why the United States stopped the experiment back in the 60's. i built an electric heat home with the expectation of electricity produce by fusion rather than fission.
It seems to me that while fusion would be a great technology if it truly does the things that they say it will, we can't afford to rest too much hope on an unproven technology that will take another 10 years just to test.  I think that cheap, reliable electricity will replace fossil fuels as the cornerstone of our economy as we electrify our transportation, increase electronics use in our economy, and automate more and more processes.  However, there's a lot of "here and now" that we can do to improve electric reliability and reduce the cost of electricity, even without a silver bullet like nuclear fusion.  Most homes still have "dumb" meters that have to be manually read, and while time-of-use electricity rates are increasing, the electric infrastructure as a whole still has a long way to go before we can consider it intelligent or modern.  Lets put some heavy investment into these technologies while we're waiting for nuclear fusion.
Why isn't a thing like this constructed in the USA?  There is much more open spaces here in the USA than in France.
"Basically, we know how to design this machine," he told me. "It's just a complicated, integrated package with a lot of different players, that's what makes it challenging for us."

Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like the Space Shuttle promises?  This thing is a stupendous international jobs program that has grown out of control.  The US was wise to get out, and dumb to get back in.

Did you ask the good Dr. why we're spending all our money on the most unviably huge and hard to control method of confinement?  Inertial electrostatic and inertial confinement fusion are both far better-and cheaper-bets.

Does anyone ask why GE isn't even touching this stuff?  Or have we gotten to the point where we've forgotten that business does most of the *useful* R&D?
MY BROTHER FIGURED OUT A BETTER FUSION PROCESS. THE UNION OF COLD AND HOT W/ THE USE OF HEAVY WATER AND SOME OTHER STUFF I CANT GET BECAUSE ITS OVER MY HEAD BUT   CHECK IT OUT ON NOBLEFUSE.ORG!!!!!!!!!
Why isn't a thing like this constructed in the USA?

a p garcia, To my knowledge, when things weren't going anywhere after a long hiatus of no funding, the US actually chose to drop out of the ITER program.  When it was restarted by European powers and Japan they had full control of the project.  I don't think the U.S. rejoined until it saw China had joined.  One look at that photo tells me France also has some beautiful open spaces left for such a complex.  I was disapointed to read that construction won't even begin until 09 as I would have thought it was just getting started and we might have seen some peliminary buildings that are part of the complex (though not the reactor building itself) at least going up. Heck, I think France fully intends to run a high speed rail line down there as part of the agreement.  Canada did try to be the host nation as it to was one of the controlling members but could not compete with all the perks and vast commitments like high speed trains France and Japan were offering.  
Hi! I am an inside journeyman wireman electrician and excited about the possibilities ITER can bring about. Remember the challenges early on with utilities starting out with dc and then changing to ac distribution. It took many to make it work and over time so many changes for the better have materialized. I was just wondering though, isn't France one of only a couple of countries that figured out how to make a breeder reactor work? If I remember right, one of the biggest pluses was that fact that basically this type of reactor leaves no waste. It uses everything----there is no radioactive waste and it is so much safer. Let me know if you know anything about such, eh?
Bon jour, Alan  --  hope your time overseas included some sight-seeing as well as site-seeing.

Fusion is the ultimate power source and operates the whole universe.  Along with some other peculiar quantum   techniques which are actually restrictive in nature rather than productive, as fusion is.  We already know how to get the energy out of fusion, but only in a rather sharp burst of power in a destructive mode.  I can't help but believe we can tame the beast eventually, as we have with so many wild energies in the past - wind, fire, water - and put our yoke on his neck.  But, in ten years?  Yes, if we put our money into it.  No, if we leave it lie and 'let George do it.' My only other caveat is, 'Do we have that much time left before Global Warming takes us down?'

Other concerns such as excessive heat from fusion stations can be taken care of (refrigeration) as the occasion arises.
Actually, with the huge implications to the global environment being incurred by the current systems of power generation, why are we not embarking on a Manhattan Project approach? All this seems too little, too late.
Yanks are too obsessed with Oil and wreckin the Planet

Most of Europe don't like them, and are trying to save the Planet, not Wreckit like the Yanks
I predict that after spending billions, the ITER will still not "break even", will still require more energy to run than it can produce. It will get a little closer to the goal,and that will be used as a justification for even more billions wasted.

What it will prove is that a reactor big enough and powerful enough to exceed breakeven will be so ridiculously expensive that it cannot be economically practical.

How far away is a reliable working fusion reactor?

About 93 million miles.
The sun is a whopper of a fusor.  If we spent 1/10th what this thing is going to cost on developing superior solar voltaic technology, we'd solve the world's energy crisis forever.  
Wow, all ITER, all the time.  What about Clint Seward's Electron Power Systems?  What about Eric Lerner's Dense Plasma Focus device, a reactor design that's achieved plasma densities and fusion rates three times that of any tokamak-style reactor, and has been licensed by a Swedish engineering company for full production by 2012, about the time ITER finally breaks ground on the reactor site?

Furthermore, what about Dr. Robert Bussard's four decades of work, culminating in an electrostatic confinement device that actually produces _net_energy_, to the tune of a 3000% energy production?

Oh, and did I mention that none of the above have radioactive fuels or byproducts?  That they're all over 70% efficient in converting their power to electricity (ITER works by boiling water to turn steam turbines, tech from the last century at an efficiency of around 20%)?  That these reactors would fit nicely in the space used by a small gas station, and could drive hydrogen electrolyzers and provide quick-charge capacity to pure electric vehicles as well as servicing the local power grid, improving things by decentralizing the production of electrical power?  And that the only byproduct is slightly above room temperature helium gas?

ITER is a pipe dream.  Unfortunately, Big Science in the form of government-funded projects (NASA, the Atomic Energy Commision, etc.) is the only thing getting money and press time.

I was really hoping to see real journalism in this article, but it's just all rehashes of ITER press release fodder.
P.S. I think you called this science tour a working sort of vacation, which is the exact kind of vacation I'd like to take.  It would be quite a trek, but I'd visit Paranal (site of the Very Large Telescope (VLT)in Chili), The European space facility in French Guiana, a tour of Airbus would be to die for, and I wouldn't mind seeing very large engineering projects like the tunnel under the Swiss Alps when it opens!

Hope you enjoyed the trip! Welcome back to what I am calling the day democracy died... you know... those pesky congressional subpoenas that the justice department won't enforce because it's been um... HIJACKED!
"Why isn't a thing like this constructed in the USA?"

Because the greenies and the AlGores of the country won't allow it.  They know better than you what's good for you.  Don't believe me?  Just ask them.
A P Garcia..why wasn't it built in the USA?? For the same reason trees don't get harvested or new oil wells don't get drilled or any one of the many things that we should be doing. They probably wanted to build it here but there was a family of birds or something living in the area and a bunch of enviro-nuts went on the march
The reason it is not being built in America is because of American's attitude,"Not In My Back Yard!"

That is why Technology wise, the USA is falling behind. Just look at the medical system. They do amazing procedures in other countries than in the US. I know, I asked my specialist a few years ago about a procedure they did on one of the Astronauts in Europe. He said sorry, we can't do that here in the US.
To answer:  why isn't a thing like this constructed in the USA?

If I remember correctly:  There was a lot of wrangling over the location of ITER.  ITER provides to the host country: national prestige, scientific clout, and jobs.  The host (which I suppose is "Europe" not just France) is required to foot a larger part of the bill than the other partners.  If I remember correctly, I think other partners were trying very hard to be the host country.  The end decision was based on a combination of political and scientific grounds.
Solar is better than Fusion I feel in 10 years Solar will be 5 times cheaper than Fossil Energy. So we should invest in Solar Energy instead.

Bye
www.GetClub.com
forty years is too long of a time.  I do understand that TOKAMAK fusion is very complicated and that doesn`t help things...  There`s a company in the states that`s been studying IEC fusion and say they beat all the problems that have been haunting the IEC system....

Electron loss, Maxwellian problems, Brehmsstrahlung radiation, and Synchrotron Radiation Loss  issues with IEC fusion have been solved, to improve on previous fusion rates by 100 000 to produce a  fusion rate of about 1E9 /sec...

Bussard is the guy`s name and he says that he could have a self-sustaining, 100MW polywell IEC fusion plant within 7 years, whose fuel is salt from the seawater(boron), and absolutely no radioactive byproducts, and no pollution.    

yea i know...  "could", right?  Keep in mind that  the ITER is in the same boat but it`ll take the ITER another 40 years and 900% more funds than the IEC.

here`s a link with some more info
http://emc2fusion.org

The French have the best most experienced nuclear regulatory agency in the world. The primary reason the plant isn't being built in the USA, is that the French didn't run away from nuclear energy at the thought of a nuclear accident as did the USA. We have rabid environmentalists to thank for that. Also, as a global effort, many other countries didn't want the plant in the USA. The level of trust globally for the USA- who can blame them. (I'm a republican and even I can admit that.)

I'm for nuclear fission in the near term and nuclear fusion in the long term, in addition to the cleaning of traditional sources as well as pursuing alternative green sources of electricity. Unfortunately, non of these are built over night. You can't just throw a switch and VOILA! you're generating power.

The extreme environmentalists hold entirely too much sway here in the US. We need to continue to build power plants and electrical distribution infrastructure to keep up with demand growth- else the rolling blackouts in California may become a nationwide problems, and the recent power outages in the northeast are symptomatic of an industry that has been hamstrung by environmental regulation entirely to long. The costs of all of the environmental studies alone, make power generation and distribution projects hard to justify. People need to get some perspective. We can all keep our heads in the sand or we can take the steps needed to keep the lights and heat on!

The activists in the minority have painted the rest of us in the majority in a corner, its time reasonable people prevailed instead of those who scream the loudest, or the most shrill.

It's going to take about $500BN to get fusion to the point where it's viable- this project is just a start.  There is no real substitute for this type of large scale power generation for running cities, and making hydrogen for airplanes and cars, etc.  I think we need to accelerate this project and start designing the next generation of research reactors right now.  
Nuclear fusion will be one of the most important aspects for the world's future energy needs.  The concepts and prototypes have been worked on for the last 40 years.  Hopefully the team will be able to overcome the technological barriers for efficient use.  The time period of 10 years will of course be stretched to 25 years but it will be worth the effort.
garcia,

Bill Clinton pulled us out of ITER during his term. Part of the reason was justified -- a lot of infighting, and more politics than science going on. I do not think the US would have been considered anyway, but there was zero chance once we pulled out of the project.

What is sad is that we've spent over a decade just arguing about the site for this place to be built.
I'm sorry, but we've been assured for 50 years that fusion power is "just over the horizon".  So far, nuclear fusion has ended up as what we tech-geeks refer to as "vaporware".
Why is France the chosen country for this facility?  As Americans, I do not know why we constantly include France in our economic and political ventures.  The French are notorious for never finishing anything and historically, they can even maintain control of there country.  Twice in the twentieth century the USA had to go there and defeat a power that had assumed contorl of there little country.  American blood still oozes from the ground there and the French people should give thanks everyday for the Americans that gave their all for them.  
I studied fusion as an graduate student, 40 years ago.  Tokamak, invented by the Russians, already existed.  Attempts at various magnetic confinement approaches already existed and consumed large amounts of money.  (A Tokamak was even built in the US!) Laser-induced fusion ideas already existed and consumed large amounts of money at the same organizations that make up this team.  The "break even" point, at which the energy generated in the fusion reaction is equal to the amount required to make the fusion reaction was always 20 years (a generation) away.  This ITER effort promises results ~ 30 years away.  Fusion has always been at least 20 years away.  I can't help but conclude that as long as it is 20 years away, we will never get there.  "20 years away" has to be a euphenism for "I have no idea how to do this!"  I can't believe that trying to figure out what went wrong with the older technology is going to give a break-through.
I am sure the money ($100s of Billions) will be spent.  (It's all politics.) I would like to hope it makes something happen this time, but don't count on it.
 Negative to ITER. Too much $$$$$. Not applicable to small communties worldwide. Ok for interstellar fusion mega-ships for galactic colonization.

Actually, for 4.5 billion years, as you are well aware, plasma core fusion has been about 92 million miles away. We just need to efficiently "collect" the continuous electromagnetic spectrum energies from our own star. 

 How about genetically modified super tree "homes"? How about building "tree houses" utilizing the shade of the foliage? There are more possibilities open with imagination and creativity. 

 After all, the Anasazi and Hopi used cave overhangs to shade/cool their communities during the "hot" season and let the lower sun angle sunshine in during the "cool" seasons. 

 Anyways, conservation, more energy efficient appliances, improved zoning laws for alternate housing technologies (geodesic domes, yurts, underground homes, sod covered homes, hay bale homes, etc.) with technologies and engineering to create "stand-alone", independent, housing/condos/apartment units generating their own power. 

 Or, reducing the human population by half, naturally, without genocide, war, terrorism? There are currently far too many to sustain a long term global civilization safely with prosperity, health, and intellectual growth. Most people are not future orientated long-term planners--discipline and self-restraint.     
The ITER isn't being built in the U.S. because joe sixpack is terrified of anything where the word radioactive is used.  joe sixpack had better get used to fission/fusion reactors, it's going to be a major way the U.S. is powered in the future!
We need to speed this process up,fusion has been on the verge of reality for as long as I've been an adult and I'm 70 years old. The best way to speed this along is to keep wasting energy like we have in the past, everybody needs a herky 4 door pickup to haul groceries or a huge RV. An extended war helps too, either way we're going to need fusion sooner rather than later.
It seems like some people just cannot let go - Nuclear fusion is a dangerous idea - it has many draw backs to it - on the other hand the French would be wise to check into an on-coming and very soon new technology called SEG - Searl Effect Generator.  As of this day the SEG has by far the very best potential of any alternative energy programs including nuclear fusion.  
Well i do love the thought of almost completely free energy but do laugh at the fact that they says this reactor will be harmless. to the best of my knowlage this reactor will contain a nuclear blast 24 hours a day and if that magnetic field fails.....  well you know what happened at hiroshima.

Just a note i'm all for green technology but it should not be pushed forward just so some people look good for the crowd. make it safe then make it avalable
Big bucks, dedication and incentive developed tha "A" bomb in less than 1/4 the time. I hope other research will not be robbed of funds by ITER. Like what happens when a neutron source is bombarded with high energy protons and any resulting products. Neutron source: alpha-n reaction,such as PoBe or long half life PuBe.
France has the greatest number of engineers, scientists and regulators experienced in the practical application of nuclear technology. They have a populace accustomed to nuclear power, its benefits and its risks.

The French have significant advantage in all things Nuclear right now. Most Americans are not aware that the French firm Areva provides maintenance, operations and upgrade of must US reactors. New US reactors are being built by a consortium of firms, chief of which is Areva. France generates most (80%?) of their domestic power from nuclear, whereas we are in the low  to mid 20% range.

The US does have good theoretical scientists that are valuable to the ITER project, but our practical experience building, managing and operating real systems is waning (if not defunct). The Calvert, MD reactor (our first) is over 40 years old and is scheduled to begin upgrade maybe in 2012 -- the first real new commercial core in the US in over 30 years.

The US needs to catch up. Until then we work in France.

Fusion is the future of power generation, if we can achieve ignition and sustained reaction, then it may be possible for individual homes to have there own power source, perhaps even miniature reactors built into everyday devices, we would not need oil any more, except for using it for lubrication, as well as the reactor may be able to synthesize any element we may need!
Why not the USA?  You want that kind of Crater in your back yard, if something goes wrong. Remember, this is the power of the sun and the H-Bomb. :)

Actually Failure to get any viable results is the more likely outcome.  But can we afford not to try....
Until nuclear fusion machines become more than "lab-rat" machines, we need to look for alternatives to fossil fuel generator stations. One possible alternative is plasma gasification of waste materials. The process is well understood, and could reduce the amount of landfill waste. We burn the gases that result from the process to power ordinary steam turbines, use part of the power to operate the plant, and sell the rest.  
Several years ago I read an article pointing out that increased funding would shorten the development time, sent it to my Congressman (Defasio), and got back a nonsense answer, thus explaining the funding question. The politicians are ignorant.

For much the same reason, the center of nuclear research has shifted to other countries. We still do research and development, but more effort occurs overseas. (Google China and fusion.)

In terms of funding, the dollar amounts are very small in relation to the money going into other energy generation. It could easily be increased.

ITER is being built in France after considerable wrangling, partly because Clinton pulled us out of ITER; Bush put us back in; and we lost considerable clout because of that.
"Why isn't a thing like this constructed in the USA?  There is much more open spaces here in the USA than in France."

Are you kidding?

If you tried to build anything nuclear with 500 miles of any one in the US they'd have you tied up in legal battles for 10 years. The Europeans aren't as litigation happy as we are in the US. Also they use nuclear power for more of their energy needs than the US, this is espcially true of the French, so they are probably less likley to freak out in the first place.
Fusion in your backyard?

With respect, this is a sci-fi fantasy that would make little to no practical sense even if possible. I'm not a fan of "big grid" projects but think that micro generation on the order suggested in your post is wasteful. One hundred million or more mini-reactors would drain significant resources from already low supplies -- tungsten would rise to the cost of platinum, for instance. We'd need to strip mine the earth.

I think you are on the right track in one respect, though: smaller reactors would likely reduce many of the existing infrastructure issues we have today. Upgrades of existing grids (and implementation of new ones) would go faster if the system were smaller.

How small?

Something on the order of Los Angeles/NY/Chicago running their own reactors. Other reactors could span a state (in flyover country, for instance) but they have simpler infrastructure anyway.

Fusion is not a panacea. No "baseline" power generation can be unless it can alter output volume rapidly to grow and shrink with daily requirements. But it would be much cleaner and potentially cheaper than carbon fuels.

The promise of fusion (or any silver bullet technology) is lost without more research toward conversion of non-baseline systems (cars, etc.) to electric-capable systems. This means storage (battery) and superconductor research.

In the meantime, we should grow our fission-based reactors to meet more of our baseline demands. They are building one in my backyard and I don't mind one bit. As a matter of fact, more than 90% of residents within 40 miles of Calvert Cliffs think a new core is a great idea. But we're not like the rest of the USA, mind you.

We're smarter.  ;)
Actually, the United States has an inertial confinement fusion lab at the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics and is building a larger facility (the National Ignition Facility) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  I don't believe that the LLE has produced anything close to break-even fusion energy, and I think that NIF hopes to break even at best.  Both are/will be used to check the health of nuclear weapons, too, now that we no longer perform real tests.
I find it interesting with many people saying "it will work" or "it won't work" as if they have already done it themselves.  The fact is, right now we simply don't know if fusion can be viable or not given our current level of technology.  Regardless, I think we owe it to ourselves to find out.

As to why they chose the tokamak design, I have to trust that all the scientists working on the design have good reasons for doing so.  I am no physicist and almost no one posting here is either.  So right now, I choose not to second guess.  History will tell.
Re-read the article and note the use of Deuterium and Tritium producing Helium and Neutrons. Neutrons are radiation, guys, and the lining of the Tokamak will become more and more radioactive and will deteriorate and will need to be replaced periodically.  Where do you want to put the old, highly radioactive lining?  Don't laugh at cold fusion until you've read the original papers and subsequent follow up experiments.
Uhh, hate to break it to you guys but the energy from fusion reactions comes out in the form of high energy neutrons. It sure sounded like somebody was trying to say electrostatic confined fusion puts out energy directly in the form of electricity. Neutrons need to be stopped so you can get the energy from them, this is done with FLiBe, the [N,Li] reaction is where they get tritium from. Neutrons also activate stuff, so there would be radioactive byproducts albeit short lived ones.

The US already has a huge waste of money fusion project called NIF. Luckily France is now building a ICF system called laser megajoule. They dont have the GDP that we do though to pour billions of dollars into these projects, so we will ultimately win by bankrupting their country.

I am totally sure that ITER will surpass breakeven as this was already "done" in Japan. The fact that they were using D-D instead of D-T led to a huge decrease in the output, had they used D-T the equivalent Q would have been greater then 1.
Why do Republicans/conservatives need to turn every discussion into a war between good (the U.S. capitalism) and evil (enviromentalists, Democrats, Europeans, especially the French) It's ignorance like the kind displayed in the various posts above that's holding this country back and why we're turning into a backwater. We're falling behind in technology and science because of Creationists not enviromentalists.
"American blood still oozes from the ground there and the French people should give thanks everyday for the Americans that gave their all for them."

You mean kind of like how we should thank the French for saving our hide in the Revolutionary War and again in 1812?  They don't owe us squat.
Eh.. did any of you ever google search "should google go nuclear"?   ...

A lot of you stating that ITER will take another 30 years and hundreds of billions of dollars.  

Well this bussard guy had VERY ENCOURAGING results from one of his IEC fusion reactor prototypes and claims that with 3 million dollars or so(doesnt have the funding), he could prove his results in two years tops.

If results are positive(why would anyone make false claims... knowing that your rep is on the line), which they will be, reactor would be scaled up to 100MW output in another 5 years and would only cost 0.2% of the TOKAMAK...  or $200Milion.

It can be scaled up to deliver from 100MW to 3000MW of poweroutput.

I know theres other types of fusion too but IEC is the only one with positive results NOW, meaning you wouldnt have to wait another "30 years"....
The reason Fusion isn't solved is that one experiment takes 10 years to approve, 10 years to try, and the agreement of 14 different international committees. No out of the box thinking is going to come from that.

We need new ideas that can make the experimentation cheaper if this is to be solved. My main hope is that impassioned article about why it can't be solved -- a sure sign that it can.
Wasn't this the plot of Spiderman 2?


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=245828

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google